THE LTE STANDARD - Qualcomm

1 THE LTE STANDARDD eveloped by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deployments April 2014 Prepared by Signals Research GroupProject commissioned by Ericsson and QualcommSignals Research Group conducted a comprehensive review of the 3 GPP standardization process and the underlying specifications that define LTE. The analysis sought to identify and quantify the similarities and differences within the overarching LTE specification documents as they pertain to the implementation require-ments for specific frequency bands, with a particular focus on paired (FDD) and unpaired (TDD) spectrum. This whitepaper provides the findings from that study, including the results from our review of nearly 83,000 3 GPP submissions, which demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of submissions occurring during a six-year period apply to both LTE duplex schemes and that companies from all over the globe supported and contributed to the modest number of submissions which were more specific to LTE operating in paired or unpaired the sole authors of this paper, we stand fully behind the analyses and opinions that are presented in this paper.

2 In addition to providing consulting services on wireless-related topics, Signals Research Group is the publisher of the Signals Ahead research views and opinions expressed in this paper may not reflect the views and opinions of Ericsson and by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum Executive SummarySignals Research Group (SRG) conducted an exhaustive analysis of the 3 GPP standardization process that led to the development of LTE, and we reviewed all of the primary specifications that define the LTE STANDARD . There is a misconception among some of the industry followers that LTE systems configured to operate in unpaired (LTE TDD) or paired (LTE FDD) spec-trum have different origins, different technical characteristics, and different prominent contribu-tors in the 3 GPP standardization process. The objective of the whitepaper is to correct this misconception and establish that LTE is one STANDARD developed by organizations from all over the world.

3 It is truly a global STANDARD , having been designed to operate in both paired and unpaired spectrum bands with a minimum amount of additional complexity. In this whitepaper we use LTE TDD to refer to the unpaired mode of LTE since this is the term used within the 3 GPP standards body. However, TD-LTE is also commonly used instead of LTE further objective is to identify and quantify the similarities and differences between LTE as specified for use on paired spectrum, in which the downlink and uplink communications use different channels, and LTE as specified for use in unpaired spectrum, in which the downlink and uplink communications share a common radio channel and divide time. Based on this study, which included categorizing nearly 83,000 submissions that were submitted to the 3 GPP over a six-year period (April 2005 through February 2011), we offer the following observations:The overwhelming majority of 3 GPP submissions for LTE are duplex scheme agnostic, meaning that they apply equally to both duplexing options.

4 We identified 42,957 submissions out of 82,657 total that pertain to the development of the LTE STANDARD . Of these submission docu-ments, of them do not distinguish in any way between the two duplex modes, meaning that only of all LTE submissions contain duplex-specific language. Taking it one step further, we classified only of the documents as pertaining to LTE TDD and of the documents as relating specifically to LTE FDD. An additional of the documents discuss both duplex schemes. We included all of these documents even though the language in the documents could merely state that the recommendation applies equally to both duplex schemes. A subjective review of these documents would have identified these occurrences and resulted in a lower percentage versus our all-inclusive approach which inevitably includes false positives in the results. Net-Net: The actual number of submissions that identify duplex-specific features and recommendations accounts for as few as and no more than of all submissions pertaining to is one STANDARD developed by organizations from all over the Duplex Duplex TDD FDD FDD &LTE ,51035,447No.

5 Of LTE SubmissionsLTE Duplex NeutralLTE Duplex SpecificDistribution of 3 GPP Submissions by Duplex SchemeSource: Signals Research GroupPage by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentsWe identified at least 104 companies that submitted contributions to the 3 GPP standardization process during the timeframe of the review. Of these companies, 58 companies made contribu-tions that specifically address LTE TDD and 52 companies made contributions that specifically address LTE FDD. Further, no single country or region can claim it had more influence during the standardization process. Europe was the largest contributor with 28% of all LTE TDD submissions coming from the region. Other large contributors included the United States (23%), China (19%), South Korea (17%) and Japan (10%). Relative to the total number of contributions, each country s/region s contributions to LTE TDD was between and of its total LTE contributions and for LTE FDD the range was between and There is a very high degree of commonality in the technical specifications (TS) between the FDD and TDD modes of LTE.

6 Based on our review of eight TS documents which define the majority of the LTE radio access network (RAN) as well as other pertinent specifications and publications, it is very apparent that the overwhelming majority of the specifications are duplex agnostic, meaning that they apply equally to both duplex schemes. While perhaps self-evident to most industry followers, LTE FDD and LTE TDD share a common core network with abso-lutely no distinction between the two duplexing modes of LTE. LTE FDD and LTE TDD are virtually identical with the exception of a few technical charac-teristics that are specific to the Physical Layer. Examples where the two LTE modes are largely identical include the downlink physical layer channels, the use of resource blocks, the mapping of control channels to resource elements, the channel coding, the scrambling of each code word, the modulation types and how they work, and the basic implementations of MIMO.

7 In the uplink, areas with large commonalities include the use of SC-FDMA, control channels (PUCCH), modulation schemes, channel coding, how resource elements are mapped in the frequency and time domain, and PRACH (Physical Random Access Channel), which defines the Physical Layer channel that carries attempts by the mobile device to access the system, including responses to LTE FDD and LTE TDD are virtually identical with the exception of a few technical characteristics that are specific to the Physical : Signals Research GroupOther3%China19%South Korea17%Japan10%US23%Europe28%Other6%Chi na13%South Korea15%Japan17%US19%Europe30%LTE TDDLTE FDDLTE Duplex NeutralOther5%China12%South Korea15%Japan16%US22%Europe30%Country/Re gional Distribution of Submissions to the 3 GPP RAN Working GroupsPage by a global community to support paired and unpaired spectrum deploymentspaging messages and requests to transmit data.

8 For both duplex schemes, the Medium Access Control (MAC) Layer is identical, with one minor distinction, the RLC (Radio Link Control) Layer is identical, and the Radio Resource Control (RRC) Layer is essentially identical, with some distinction regarding when a couple of messages can be are some differences between the LTE FDD and LTE TDD modes that we identified, but these differences primarily pertain to when an action or event is done and not to why or how something is executed. The differences associated with when something is done stem from the discontinuous downlink/uplink transmissions that are an inherent part of any TDD duplex scheme. In a similar fashion there are also differences, or what are perhaps better classified as options/configurations, within each duplex scheme. These unique configurations allow LTE to be deployed in 34 different frequency bands 23 LTE FDD and 11 LTE TDD support six potential channel bandwidths, and seven possible downlink/uplink configurations for LTE TDD.

9 A global contingent of operators and vendors harmonized LTE TDD on a single frame struc-ture, even though it removed some commonality with earlier time-division-duplexing-based 3 GPP 3G standards . During the early development stages of LTE, LTE TDD had two frame structure options, including one frame structure that was very similar to the frame structure used by TD-SCDMA (or LCR TDD, as it is referred to in the 3 GPP specifications). Other than this distinction, LTE TDD had little, if anything, in common with earlier time-division-duplexing-based 3 GPP 3G standards . Following the initial recommendations by China Mobile, Vodafone Group, and Verizon Wireless, the 3 GPP RAN Working Group agreed to a single optimized TDD mode, based on Frame Structure 2, further optimizing performance and ensuring ease of imple-mentation of FDD and TDD modes within the same E-UTRA equipment. Following this decision within 3 GPP the LTE specifications no longer support a relationship that previously existed with LCR TDD.

10 Further, this action was consistent with an earlier recommendation from Vodafone Group, T-Mobile International, TeliaSonera, and Telefonica that: Unnecessary fragmentation of technologies for paired and unpaired band operation shall be avoided. This shall be achieved with minimal complexity. Operators recognized that the pitfalls associated with the large discontinuity between how the 3G (UMTS) specifications defined FDD and TDD modes resulted in the unsuccessful market adoption of a global 3G solution for their unpaired spectrum. A recent IEEE paper1 from engineers at Datang Telecom further reinforces this approach. The papers states, ..during the process of developing LTE and LTE-Advanced specifications, the maximum commonality between TDD and FDD has been emphasized in the Third Generation Part-nership Project (3 GPP), and realized by achieving a good balance between the commonality of basic structures and optimization of individual characteristics.